What is wrong with the GPL?

Many times I have been asked why I didn't choose to put my source code under GPL.

Now here is why.

First though, a disclaimer, many people have discussed whether or not the GPL is a good or bad thing. I personally think there isn't anything good or bad without a clear definition of the context in which this tags are being used. Just see what Webster tells us for the noun good:

1 a : something that is good b (1) : something conforming to the moral order of the universe (2) : praiseworthy character

I don't know about you, but for me "the moral order of the universe" is something pretty fuzzy:

2 : lacking in clarity or definition

So, what follows isn't about marking the GPL as good or bad, it's rather my reason why I don't want to use it.

Reason
1a: a statement offered in explanation or justification
b : a rational ground or motive
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible

Richard Stallman calls the GPL pragmatic idealism. Now, allthough from my point of view these two words are pretty close to an oxymoron, I probably need to read up on it in one of Nicolas Rescher's books ("A System of Pragmatic Idealism" Vol. I and II).

Let's see what is the pragmatic and what is the idealistic part.

Idealistic is the notion of freedom.

The free software definition states the following:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

• The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).


• The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).


• The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Now, this isn't something particular to the GPL, but is shared by many other licenses as well.

Pragmatic is the notion of copyleft.

Which basically is described as

..a general method for making a program or other work free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well.

And here is where I see the big catch with the GPL: the above is an euphenism for the fact that the whole idea of freedom did not seem practically viable to the author of the GPL, or
Freedom comes at the cost of freedom?!

Sounds a lot like the purpose sanctifies the means to me. Religious, not pragmatic at all.

Additionally the only real argument given by Richard Stallman's Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism is simply the fact that it was effective. E.g. it produced the initially desired effect:

If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not enough--you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal.
[...]
GNU GPL continues to bring us more free software
[...]

I think that freedom comes at the cost of responsibility, and I am definately not the only one:

Responsibility is the price of freedom.
(Elbert Hubbard)

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.
(George Bernard Shaw)

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
(Benjamin Franklin)

The very best counter argument to the GPL's effectivity is the Apache License of the Apache Foundation.

Let's all grow up and become more conscious. Not by force, but by free will. Including all those that "pirate" our software.